vv EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9200.3-11
' Final Policy on Setting RI/FS Priorities
APPROVAL DATE: 12/17/9O
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/7/91
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Di
-------
OC 20480
OSWER Directive initiation Request
1. Directive
9200-3-11
3. Originator Inlormitlon
Nam* of Contact Person
Ed Zimkowski
Mail Cod*
240
0flicteR/OPM
Telephone Cod*
475-9330
3. TiU*
Final Policy on Setting RI/FS Priorities
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement o» purpoi*) . , . ,,_,.__ __j
Transmits final policy on RI/FS prioritization developed by Hqtrs and
Regional Offices
5. Keyword*
Sueprfund;RI/FS; cleanupp
6*. Don This Direciw* Sup«rs«d« Prevtoui Oir*ctiv«(*)?
b. OOM II Supplement Prevlou* 0*recttve($)f
I No
No
Ye« What oSrecttve (number. We)
I I Ye« Whtt tfrtctfce (number. OOe)
7. Draft Level
A-SJpedbyAA/DAA
8-Signed by Office Director | [ C-For Review* Comment | | 0 - ei Development
^^^_u^_ ^^^^^^
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? I I YM 1*
Thl« Mequeit Meets OSWCW OlreeDvu System Format Standard*.
9. Signature of Lead Office Oirectivet Coordinator
Betti VanEpps
10. Name and Title ol Approving Official
Don R.' Clay, Assistant Administrator
Date i
1/7/91 ;
Date
r i
12/17/90 1
EPA Form 13tl-17 (Rev. *-IT) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
3 rsj^7 I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\-iyl££ >' WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
V ' jf
DEC 2 7 1990
O^'CE O'
SOLiO WASTE ANDEVE«GENCv RESPONSE
OSWER Directive #9200.3-11
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Policy on Setting RI/FS Priorities
FROM: Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response^./
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Regions III, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Purpose
This memorandum transmits the final policy on RI/FS
prioritization which Headquarters and the Regions have been
working on for the past few months.
Background
A draft of this policy was provided for your review and
comment in a memorandum from Henry Longest and Bruce Diamond
dated August 28, 1990.
Implementation
The major change in the policy is the requirement that the
final list of prioritised sites must be submitted along with your
description summary to Headquarters before January 31, 1991. The
reason for this change is that it is more cost effective and
efficient for Headquarters to have a copy of your list thereby
reducing the cost of travel to review these lists in person. I
am aware of your serious concerns about the sensitivity of these
lists, and assure you that they will be considered enforcement
confidential and therefore will not be made public.
Thank you for your assistance in developing this policy
which will provide greater assurance that we are addressing the
worst problems first throughout the Superfund remedial pipeline.
PriMtd on KteyeUd Paper
-------
The attached policy incorporates most of your suggestions
and also includes a question and answer section to address many
of your specific concerns. If you have further questions
regarding this policy, please contact Henry Longest or Bruce
Diamond for clarification.
Attachment
cc: OERR Division Directors
CERCLA Enforcement Division Director
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
RI/FS Prioritization Policy
Background; The 90-Day Study of Superfund charged us with the
task of managing our project workload according to the human
health/environmental priority of the problem(s) posed by each
site. In addition, the Superfund budget is seriously constrained
in the RI/FS area. As a result we must carefully target new and
ongoing RI/FSs in a fashion which assures that, within available
resources, we have the greatest impact on human health and the
environment. These factors argue strongly for a more systematic
process for establishing the relative priority of RI/FS projects.
The goal of this policy is, therefore, to demonstrate our
compliance with the Worst Problems First policy at the earliest
stage of the remedial process. Specific objectives are to:
1. Focus the limited number of RI/FS starts (both First and
Subsequent) on the worst site problems in each Region.
2. Reduce the time needed to address the worst problem
(principal contamination)- at sites where sRI/FSs are
already underway and to potentially reduce the
investigation to address only the apparent principal
threats.
3. Save resources from ongoing Fund lead RI/FSs to allow
other higher priority problems in the Region to be
addressed.
This policy does not include RI/FSs which have Federal
Facility activities and State Enforcement leads where no
Superfund dollars are being spent.
Final Policy: In order to better assure that the worst problems
are addressed first when making tradeoffs between sites and their
operable units in the RI/FS stage, Regions must complete the
following actions:
Ongoing RI/FSs: Assess ongoing Fund-lead RI/FS projects
(First and Subsequent) where the ROD is projected to be
completed in the post FY 1991 timeframe. (See Attached
List #1)
The best candidates for resource savings are ongoing
projects early in the RI where a comprehensive study
addressing most or all of the site can be reduced in
scope to focus on the principal threat(s). For some of
these cases, the remaining work may be of a relatively
low priority and stopping it will generate significant
resource savings.
-------
-2-
It is possible that a majority of ongoing Fund-lead
RI/FSs may not be good candidates for resource savings.
Among these are projects with:
Strong State/Community concerns and factors
Insignificant savings potential (all field
investigations and analytic work completed)
A high likelihood of RA funding (Priority 1
projects)
Significantly higher costs to return to site if
RI/FS is stopped.
An ongoing RI/FS which has a new and significant
PRP interest which will likely lead to a PRP
takeover.
RZ/FS -Starts: Establish the relative priority of all
RI/FS Start candidates — this includes both First and
Subsequent projects, including Fund and Enforcement
leads.(See Attached List #2)
Requirements for Prioritization Process: Decisions
concerning the process for establishing RI/FS priorities
are to be made by each Region (each Region may use its
own unique process). -However, Regions must use a
systematic, documented process that establishes the
relative priority of sites/projects. The following items
shall serve as minimum requirements when designing a
RI/FS priority system.
ERS as Start Point: The Hazard Ranking System package
can be used as the starting point for establishing
RI/FS priorities. Additional, more recent or detailed,
information should also be considered to the extent
available.
Standard Environmental Criteria: The following
criteria, which are currently used in assessing RA
projects, should be used in evaluating ongoing RI/FSs
and RI/FS start candidates. However, it is recognized
that the level of detail available on these criteria
may be significantly less for RI/FS projects than for
RAs.
— Risk of .Contaminants (nature of principal threats)
— Stability of Site/Contaminants
— Human Population Exposed
— Threats to Significant Environments
-------
-3-
State Involvement in Process: Regions should include
member states in the process when prioritizing RI/FS in
their states.
Three-tiered listing of RI/FS Start Candidates: Each
Region must array its universe of RI/FS start
candidates (First/Subsequent, Fund/Enforcement) in a
three-tiered list. This list should identify the
highest, next highest, and relatively lowest priority
groups of RI/FS start candidates based on the Region's
priority assessment using the standard criteria noted
above.
Program Management Decisions: The RI/FS Priority
process is designed to increase and make more
consistent the consideration of environmental and human
health factors in RI/FS program management decisions.
However, it is not the sole determinant of these
decisions. Regions' decisions will continue to be
based on a variety of criteria; and, depending on the
importance of other factors, projects in the lower
tiers of the Region's priority array may be initiated
ahead of higher ranked projects. Regions should be
prepared to explain these cases.
Some of the program management factors that may result in
decisions favoring relatively low-ranked RI/FS candidates
being started include the following:
— Enforcement Considerations: where PRPs are willing
to conduct the RI/FS, have strong financial
viability, and are expected to produce a quality
RI/FS, Regions may choose to initiate a RI/FS for
relatively lower priorities.
— In-House RI/FS: because of the training value of
these projects, they may be given consideration over
higher ranked projects.
— Site Completion: although site completions/deletions
are generally considered less important than
addressing the worst problems, Regions may consider
site completions (as it relates primarily to final
operable units) as a program management factor.
— Multiple OUs: where sites have multiple OUs which
may be interdependent upon each other, and the risks
associated with the OU being prioritized are
relatively low, the interdependence may favor
starting/continuing the RI/FS.
-------
-4-
The attached graphs identify the number of sites without a
RI/FS Start (Chart 1), ongoing Fund-lead RI/FS projects (Chart 2)
and planned subsequent RI/FS projects (Chart 3) in each Region
that currently meet criteria for the RI/FS priority process. The
timing for completion of the assessment of all RI/FS start
candidate sites and the subset of ongoing Fund-lead RI/FSs is
January 31, 1991. On or before that date, Regions will submit to
the Directors of OERR and OWPE a memorandum which includes:
An assurance (by the Haste Management Division Director)
that the Region:
(1) has prioritized its RI/FS Start candidates; and
(3) will ensure that the worst problems will be
addressed first in managing the RI/FS portion of the
Superfund pipeline by:
(a) generally selecting RI/FS starts from the
highest ranked candidates (tier 1); and
(b) providing an explanation of why any lower ranked
RI/FS candidates are started.
Summary description of the process used by the Region in.
assessing ongoing Fund lead RI/FSs and in establishing
the. priority of first and subsequent RI/FS start
candidates.
A listing of the ongoing Fund lead RI/FS projects that
were assessed and a summary of the actions to be taken as
a result of the assessment (Exception Reporting). This
should include a summary of expected resource savings and
may include a proposal to start one or more untargeted
RI/FSs in either FY 1991 or 1992 (if the Region projects
sufficient resource savings from redirecting or stopping
any ongoing RI/FSs).
A three-tiered listing of all RI/FS start candidates
(Fund and PRP-lead) assessed noting which are first and
subsequent and a brief explanation of why the
site/project ranked in its specific tier is required.
A summary of the Region's planned RI/FS Start decisions
should also be incorporated into this listing.
-------
-5-
Questions and Answers Pertaining to RI/FS Prioritization
1) Are Federal Facility Activities and State Enforcement
leads covered under this RI/FS prioritization policy?
- No, provided no Superfund dollars are being spent.
2) How are State lead Fund RI/FSs covered by the policy?
- State lead Fund RI/FS starts will be covered by this
policy. Ongoing State lead Fund RI/FS will also be
included in the universe to be reviewed but
Headquarters realizes that many of these RI/FS will
not be able .to be trimmed back or halted.
3) Should Fund lead and PRP lead RI/FSs be prioritized
separately?
t
- No, there is no reason to separate the two leads.
The goal of this process is to put in place a ranking
system regardless of whether the RI/FS is expected to
have a Fund or PRP lead. This ranking should not be
delayed simply because the lead has not been
determined.
4) How will funds saved from ongoing Fund lead RI/FSs be
made available to the regions?
- Unspent monies will be returned to the regions to
start additional RI/FSs. Please keep in mind thcit
' these additional RI/FSs must follow the RI/FS
prioritization policy and be within overall FTE
constraints.
5) Can the January 31, 1991 deadline be extended to
determine which party (Fund or PRP) will lead new RI/FS
starts?
- No, this process is being used to prioritize RI/FSs
as a whole not by lead. Please see question #3 for
further clarification.
-------
35-r
Chart I: NPL Sites Without RI/FS Starts
2
Note:
4567
REGION
8
10
Source: CERCLIS
ChaM-4.3.1
NPL Sites Include sites proposed tot he NPL and sites on the final NPL
Other lead Includes SN and SR leads tiat were not targeted. '
Target Imfcales sites targeted lor RI/FS Start in FY 90
RP lead Includes RP. MR. and PS leads that were not targeted.
Fund lead includes F. S. FE. SE. and EP leads that were not targeted
45 Poor Candidates for
Prioritization
' National Totals
Planned Federal Facility 12
[~] Planned Other Lead 2
B FY 90 Target 31
< Separates Poor Candidates from
Better Canditates
135 Better Candidates for
Prioritization
R7] Planned RP Lead 32
|H Planned Fund Lead 20
jf RI/FS Not Planned 38_
Total sites without RI/FS 135
Cutofl Dale: 09/30/90
PulOale: 10/19/90
Print Dale: 10/30/90
-------
Chart 2: Ongoing RI/FS at NPL Site Operable Units
150-T
&
Note:
5 6
REGION
8
10
Source: CERCLIS
Char!-4.3 2
When multiple RI/FS are going on at an operable unit, only one is counted here.
RP and Federal Facility lead includes RP. MR, PS. and FF leads.
Fund lead includes F. S. FE. SE. and EP leads.
ROD alter 91/4 indicates RI/FS planned complete after (he fourth quarter ol F Y 91
629 Poor Candidates for
Prioritizalion
i National Totals
RP & Federal Facility 532
H Fund ROD before 91/4 97
^ Separates Poor Candidates from
Better Candilates
179 Better Candidates for
Prioritization
Fund ROD after 91/4 179
Total sites with ongoing RI/FS 808
Cutod Dale: 09/30/90
PutOale. 10/19/90
PrinlDale: 10/30/90
------- |